Does the Bible Give Absolute Rules, or Only Conditional Ones?
An absolute moral rule is one that admits no exceptions. For example, the Israelites were given absolute rules in the Ten Commandments. God said, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). He did not say, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor…except in some unusual cases, or when you have a more important rule to follow.” We have previously refuted situationism or situation ethics, a type of ethical relativism that denies absolute moral rules.1 While situation ethics arguably goes back to the first temptation in the Garden of Eden, the designation “situation ethics” seems to have been coined with the 1966 book Situation Ethics: The New Morality, by the Episcopal theologian Joseph Fletcher.2 The book sought to establish not just a philosophical basis for situationism, but primarily biblical authority for it, by citing the chief importance of love in Christian morality. According to Fletcher’s particular version of situation ethics, the end of love always justifies the means that are used to achieve it. So, potentially any action could be justified, if motivated by love.3
Geisler’s Graded Absolutism
This appeal to biblical morality on the part of those promoting situationism was extended in the work of various philosophers, including Norman L. Geisler, a prominent evangelical apologist.4 Geisler’s theory is called “graded absolutism.” Geisler wished to distinguish his own position from Fletcher’s by proposing that there are more absolutes than the single, overarching rule that we must be loving.5 While Geisler does admit some moral absolutes, his theory is the same as Fletcher’s insofar as it excuses some sin due to situations. Geisler says that all of God’s laws are binding, but also that “God does not hold a person guilty for not keeping a lower moral law so long as one keeps the higher law. God exempts one from his duty to keep the lower law since he could not keep it without breaking a higher law.”6 As Wayne Grudem has helpfully pointed out, there are a number of serious flaws in Geisler’s position, from a biblical perspective:7
First, Jesus Christ lived an authentic human life, which included the basic moral difficulties we encounter, and yet He never sinned at all (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:21-23). This proves that we will never face an insoluble moral conflict, where every option results necessarily in sin.
Second, the apostle Paul promised that we will never face an insoluble moral conflict. He wrote with repetitive emphasis, “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Third, it is precisely opposed to biblical morality to suggest that God sometimes wants His children to disobey Him. We read many passages where God commanded comprehensive obedience of all His rules (e.g., Deuteronomy 5:10,29; Psalms 19:7; 119:35; Luke 1:6; 1 John 5:2-3; etc.), but not a single text where He encouraged even slight disobedience. In fact, the Bible condemns sin even when it is done to produce an apparent good (Romans 3:8).
Fourth, it would be confusing and unjust if God gave us contradictory commands, but God is the author of neither injustice (Deuteronomy 32:4; Job 34:10; Romans 9:14) nor confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). As Robert V. Rakestraw wrote:
The character of God argues [against graded absolutism—CC]. If God has given numerous moral absolutes, some of which genuinely conflict at times, it appears that there is conflict within the mind and moral will of God!… The character of God as perfect and consistent within his own moral nature appears to be jeopardized by any view which holds that God’s absolutes genuinely conflict.8
For these four reasons, before we even look at Geisler’s arguments, we anticipate they will be unsound. Let us consider them now.
Alleged Biblical Endorsement of Graded Absolutism
To find biblical support for graded absolutism, Geisler would need to locate either a biblical statement that somehow endorsed it or an approved example of it in practice. First, consider his effort to find a statement endorsing it. Geisler points to the fact that the Bible names higher and lower moral laws. Jesus did say that there are weightier matters of the law, and that there are greater and lesser sins (e.g., Matthew 5:19; 22:36-40; 23:23). Indeed, a review of the biblical doctrine of sin shows that sins can be greater or lesser in a wide variety of ways, as Wayne Jackson has helpfully noticed.9 However, Jesus did not imply that lesser sins are permissible or that some sins actually become righteous. Instead, Jesus emphasized that even the “smallest” aspects of God’s law must be obeyed: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone” (Matthew 23:23).
Alleged Biblical Examples of Graded Absolutism
Geisler gives a variety of biblical examples where a character was allegedly authorized to do what normally would be considered sinful, but which was excused on the basis of a higher law on God’s scale of importance.10 However, in none of these cases is sin actually excused or endorsed. Let us examine these briefly.
First, a number of Geisler’s examples have to do with disobeying the government in order to obey God. The Hebrew midwives disobeyed the king of Egypt to avoid killing the children (Exodus 1:15-22); The three Hebrew men refused Nebuchadnezzar’s command to worship an idol (Daniel 3); Daniel himself rebelled against the Persian king in order to pray (Daniel 6); and, in the New Testament, the apostles refused the Sanhedrin’s order to stop preaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18-20; 5:29). However, God’s Word is clear in its expectation that His people obey civil government only so long as the government does not require violation of His law (e.g., Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). Given God’s exalted position relative to human government, how could it be otherwise? No sin is actually excused in any such cases cited by Geisler.
Another example has to do with the lie told by Rahab (Joshua 2), and the alleged lying on the part of the aforementioned Hebrew midwives. It is not clear from Exodus 1 that the midwives lied at all. Rahab lied but is never commended for it. Elsewhere we have discussed the fact that Rahab is commended for her remarkable belief in God and willingness to help the Israelite spies, but not for her lie as such.11 Lying is condemned absolutely in the Bible (e.g., Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:9).
Geisler cites examples from the life of Jesus. Allegedly, Jesus disobeyed His parents in order to do His heavenly Father’s business in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52). Actually, the historian Luke does not say that Jesus disobeyed His parents. To the contrary, Luke takes care to emphasize that Jesus went home with them and was subject to them (2:51). Even if we were to admit the theoretical possibility of the child Jesus willfully choosing to sin, no sin is excused—even ostensibly—in this case. Allegedly, Jesus violated the Sabbath for a higher purpose (Mark 2:23-27). We have shown elsewhere that Jesus did not violate the Old Testament Sabbath law at all, but rather violated the Pharisees’ unauthorized broadening of it.12 So, there is no sin to excuse in this case. Allegedly, the substitutionary atonement itself is an example of God doing an apparent wrong, but for the noble purpose of achieving a good result, and so God is excused from His wrongdoing. We have shown elsewhere that the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf is not an unjust scapegoating, but rather a legitimate exercise of mercy.13
A variety of Geisler’s examples have to do with cases where God either authorized or seems to authorize killing, such as when Samson sacrificed himself in order to kill the Philistines (Judges 16:28-30),14 or when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22).15 Arguments for graded absolutism using cases such as these overlook the fact that not all killing is murder—wrongful killing (murder) is the deliberate taking of innocent human life without God’s authorization.16 Because God is in the unique position as the Creator and Lawgiver for all mankind, in whose nature all moral value is rooted, He is at liberty to take human life or authorize killing for various reasons.17
Finally, Geisler cites some extra-biblical examples. I will review just his example of making oneself late to a dinner appointment in order to stop and save a life. Generally, it would be inconsiderate and/or dishonest to intentionally keep someone waiting. However, although God’s law is absolute, human appointments typically are understood to be conditional. As Grudem puts it, “In the ordinary circumstances of life, people understand that a commitment to meet someone at a certain place and time contains an implicit qualification: ‘unless unforeseen circumstances prevent me from doing so.’”18
Conclusion
It is never right to do the wrong thing, and it is never wrong to do the right thing. This seemingly obvious, simple statement does not mean that it is always easy to know which action is right. Christians never inescapably choose the “lesser sin,” although they often choose options that are less preferable from some perspective(s). God has created an ethical landscape in which it is always possible for His rational creatures to do that which pleases Him, and which is therefore innocent before Him. May we let His Word lead us in the paths of righteousness.
Endnotes
1 See Dave Miller (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/situation-ethicsextended-version-645/.
2 Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
3 The “situation” in situation ethics is defined as “the relative weight of the ends and means and motives and consequences all taken together, as weighed by love” (Ibid., p. 23).
4 Norman Geisler (2010), Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), pp. 97-115. For a review of the literature on this subject, see Robert V. Rakestraw (1988), “Ethical Choices: A Case for Non-Conflicting Absolutism,” Criswell Theological Review 2[2]:242-247.
5 Geisler, Christian Ethics, pp. 106-107.
6 Ibid., p. 104, emp. added.
7 Wayne Grudem (2018), Christian Ethics (Wheaton: Crossway), pp. 202-206.
8 Rakestraw, “Ethical Choices,” p. 255.
9 Wayne Jackson, “Are Some Sins Greater than Others?” Christian Courier, https://christiancourier.com/articles/are-some-sins-greater-than-others.
10 Geisler, Christian Ethics, pp. 102-104.
11 Eric Lyons (2021), “Did God Approve of Rahab’s Lie?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/video/did-god-approve-of-rahabs-lie-5949/.
12 Dave Miller (2015), “Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?” Reason & Revelation, 35[5]:56-59, https://apologeticspress.org/did-jesus-break-the-sabbath-5155/.
13 See Caleb Colley (2010), “Does the Scapegoat Destroy Biblical Ethics?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/does-the-scapegoat-destroy-biblical-ethics-3552/.
14 Notice that Samson did not commit suicide in the usual sense of the word, for his intention was not to kill himself, but to save the lives of other Israelites. Samson’s own death was merely a secondary, unintended effect of his attack on the Philistines—a death which is analogous to a heroic soldier who jumps onto a grenade to save his compatriots.
15 See Eric Lyons (2021), “Is Genesis 22:2 a Reason to Reject the God of the Bible?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/is-genesis-222-a-reason-to-reject-the-god-of-the-bible/.
16 See Kyle Butt (2009), “Killing, Murder, and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/killing-murder-and-the-bible-2794/.
17 See Eric Lyons (2022), “Making Sense of Life and Death,” Reason & Revelation, 42[9]:98-106, https://apologeticspress.org/making-sense-of-life-and-death/.
18 Grudem, Christian Ethics, p. 194. Ironically, the Bible indicates specifically that encountering a truly endangered person would be an occasion to stop even when on the way to an appointment (Luke 10:30-37).
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
